On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 at 17:09, Raphael Poggi <raphael.po...@lynxleap.co.uk> wrote: > > Hi Peter, > > Le ven. 19 avr. 2024 à 16:08, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> a > écrit : > > > > On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 at 21:39, Raphael Poggi > > <raphael.po...@lynxleap.co.uk> wrote: > > > There is an assert "assert(clk->source == NULL);" in clock_propagate(). > > > If I am not wrong, clk->source is set when the clock has a parent. > > > > I think that assertion is probably there because we didn't > > originally have the idea of a clock having a multiplier/divider > > setting. So the idea was that calling clock_propagate() on a > > clock with a parent would always be wrong, because the only > > reason for its period to change would be if the parent had > > changed, and if the parent changes then clock_propagate() > > should be called on the parent. > > > > We added mul/div later, and we (I) didn't think through all > > the consequences. If you change the mul/div settings on > > clockB in this example then you need to call clock_propagate() > > on it, so we should remove that assert(). Then when you change > > the mul/div on clockB you can directly clock_propagate(clockB), > > and I don't think you need this patch at that point. > > Alright, that makes sense, is that OK if I send a patch removing the assert ?
Yes, please do. -- PMM
